The purpose of the mixed methods case study was to determine how teachers at a variety of levels (novice to veteran) were integrating technology into their classrooms and the challenges faced when doing so. I also sought to determine teacher needs in terms of providing effective technology-based professional development to overcome these challenges. I used a mixed-methods case study design combining both quantitative and qualitative data (Creswell, & Garrett, 2008). The case study design was used to gather in- depth data regarding teacher perceptions via surveys and interviews. Participating
teachers were given the opportunity to voice their opinions and share their technology- based instructional experiences and strategies. Exploring teachers’ perspectives was consistent with the constructivist notion that learning is cumulative by combining previous experience with current knowledge to construct new ideas. Participants also completed a survey that provided quantitative data. The survey addressed the amount of time teachers dedicate to technology use, the availability of technology, and support and resources for teachers and students.
According to Creswell (2007), “the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either approach alone” (p. 6). To provide a comprehensive analysis of the research problem, I employed a concurrent mixed-methods design. In a mixed-methods design, both quantitative and qualitative data is collected at the same time and is then used to inform the interpretation of the final results (Creswell, 2009).
Setting and Sample
The qualitative portion of this mixed-methods case study focused on eight teachers who teach various subjects to K-12 students. All participants who were invited to participate in the interviews, agreed to participate, and provided the qualitative data used. The quantitative survey was open to a wider population of 42 teachers (including the interview participants), of which 35 completed the survey (83% response rate). All participants are full-time district employees who constituted a diverse sample in terms of culture, gender, years of teaching experience, and pedagogical practices. The eight interview participants included highly qualified teachers, noncertified teachers, teachers new to teaching, and special education teachers. These categories framed the cases for this study. Surveys were also used to collect quantitative data. The survey was open to all teachers in the school regardless of subject area and grade level to ensure representation of the diverse teaching staff. This purposeful convenience sampling technique was
employed so that results could be generalized to a larger population of classroom teachers to make informed decisions about their needs (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). Characteristics of Sample
Highly qualified teachers. According to the Georgia Department of Education (2015), a highly qualified teacher is one who (a) holds at least a bachelor’s degree, (b) is fully certified in a state, and (c) has proven that he or she knows the subject he or she is teaching. Each state must report what percentage of classes have highly qualified teachers. The study site district reported that in the 2015-2016 school year, 97% of its teachers were highly qualified (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, 2016).
Noncertified teachers. The research site is a public charter school in the metro Atlanta area. Although the school strives to hire teachers who have in-field certifications, it is not a requirement that teachers at the site be certified. Noncertified teachers are generally completing a nontraditional route to obtaining their certification. There are 13 teachers (25%) at the site who are not certified.
New teachers. In the 2014-2015 school year, 19% of teachers in the study site had 0-2 years of teaching experience. This is above the state average of 13% (Governor’s Office of Student Achievement, 2016).
Special education teachers. Special education teachers are required to teach curriculum standards either in a co-teaching setting or a small group setting. Because these teachers are required to implement the Common Core State Standards, they have been included in this study.
Instrumentation and Materials
Quantitative data were collected through the Teacher Technology and Learning Survey developed by Education Technology Planners, Inc. (Appendix C). This 5-point Likert-type survey was open to the entire population of teachers at the site (42 teachers), and 35 completed it (83% response rate). To measure perceived technology knowledge of teachers, I used Hosseini and Kamal’s (2013) questionnaire in conjunction with the Teacher Technology and Learning Survey. Franklin (2007) used a similar survey
instrument that addressed four factors that support teachers’ use of technology: (a) access and availability, (b) preparation and training, (c) leadership, and (d) time. I employed similar descriptive and inferential statistics as those used in Franklin’s study.
Qualitative data were collected from eight teachers in the sample. The one-on- one, semi structured interviews averaged 30 minutes. The interviews allowed each participant to expand on the data from the survey. The interviews addressed teachers’ experiences with technology to understand and compare teachers’ feelings of self- efficacy and to identify best practices for technology-based professional development based on teachers’ experiences. In a similar study, McDonnough and Matkins (2010) employed interviews to explore participants’ experiences. Data collection was enhanced by allowing teachers to report personal experiences in their own words.
Data Collection and Analysis
I used a concurrent mixed-methods design. Creswell (2009) described this strategy as one in which qualitative and quantitative data are collected at the same time and one in which the researcher converges quantitative and qualitative data to analyze the research problem. In preparation for the study, I obtained institutional review board (IRB) approval from Walden University.
Qualitative Data
Qualitative data were collected via 30-minute, one-on-one, semi structured
interviews with each participant using an interview guide (Appendix E) with prompts that addressed each research question. After obtaining IRB approval, I sent an email to all prospective educators asking for their participation in the interview portion of the study (Appendix D) along with a consent form. The email offered participants an opportunity to contact me via email, by phone, or in person to clarify questions regarding the study and to set up a convenient interview date and time. All interviews were conducted in
teachers’ classrooms after school, during lunch or planning periods, or at the teacher’s discretion outside of normal teaching hours. At the beginning of each interview,
participants were reminded of the purpose of the study and their rights as participants. All interviews were audio taped and transcribed to obtain qualitative data exploring teachers’ experiences, perceptions, and needs regarding technology implementation and
technology-based professional development.
Data were organized in tables and analyzed for key words, common ideas, and themes. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed line by line to identify relevant information as a means of open coding (see Glense, 2011). Coding is a process in which data are divided into smaller parts of information (Dana & Yendol-Hoppey, 2009). The codes were further analyzed for overlapping themes to show relationships among the data (see Creswell, 2012). Themes emerged by arranging the codes into hierarchies using categories and subcategories (see Glense, 2011). After coding, the interview transcripts were numbered so I could easily retrieve the transcripts when necessary. Data were then analyzed to compare themes and to determine whether connections existed among themes (see Glense, 2011).
Within a week after each interview, each teacher was provided with a report of my analysis and was asked to check for accuracy and to identify information that needed to be changed. Participants were asked whether the information collected was complete and realistic, whether the themes were accurate and appropriate, and whether my interpretations were a fair and an accurate representation of what they intended (see
Creswell, 2012). By having participants complete this member checking process, I enhanced the validity of my findings.
Quantitative Data
Quantitative data served as the supplemental component of this mixed-methods design. Once permission to conduct research was granted by the IRB, all perspective participants (which included the entire teaching staff) were invited to complete the online survey (Appendix B) via email. The invitational email requesting participation in the survey portion of the study included study details and a link to the survey. Both the Teacher Technology and Learning Survey and the Questionnaire to Measure Perceived Technology Integration Knowledge of Teachers (TPCK) were administered using the online platform Survey Monkey. I also collected demographic data (subject(s) taught, grade level(s) taught, years of experience, how often technology is used for teaching, etc.) (Appendix C). The 5-point Likert-type survey included a quasi-interval scale in which equal intervals among the responses could not be guaranteed (see Creswell, 2012). Responses were scored and tabulated depending on frequency. Survey data were then analyzed using descriptive statistics and cross tabulation. Survey results were kept in a password-protected database, and descriptive analysis was used to describe the results as well as identify commonalities among of the data (see Creswell, 2012). Results were cross-tabulated to determine trends between factors such as the frequency of technology use compared to years of experience, or the degree of use compared to the frequency of use and degree of professional development pursued.
The TPCK is a pre-established survey that has been documented in literature as a valid instrument thereby increasing the validity of the quantitative data collected (Lodico et al., 2010). To further establish validity and credibility, I asked interview participants to check the data gathered from the TPCK survey to confirm that their experiences with technology integration and technology-based professional development were represented in the data. This check helped determine whether the survey was a reliable measure of participants’ experiences. Once data were confirmed as valid and credible, they were classified, coded, and categorized based on similar responses. All data remained
confidential and were kept secure at all times. No identifiable information was included, and participants received an open invitation to review the study’s results during and after the research process.
Triangulation occurred during the analysis stage. The quantitative data from the survey was cross-referenced with the qualitative data from the interviews. In addition, I performed member checks throughout the study to confirm that my interpretation captures the perspectives of the participants (see Merriam, 2009). Merriam (2009) described reliability as the extent to which the outcomes of a study would be the same if the study was conducted again. Permission from the creators of the survey instruments was obtained prior to administering the data collection tools. Both tools were used in previous, larger scale research and were deemed reliable.
Assumptions, Limitations, Scope, and Delimitations Assumptions
I assumed that all participants in the study responded honestly to the survey and interview questions. I also assumed that the teachers surveyed had different opinions and responded differently to the shared professional development sessions.
Limitations
Given the small sample size eight interview participants and 35 survey
participants, generalizability was limited. Future researchers may conduct a similar study using a larger sample to enhance generalizability (see Creswell, 2012).
Scope and Delimitations
This study was bounded by a population of educators who teach in a small charter school district. The group was chosen to be a representative sample of teachers with varying teaching experience and subject area knowledge. Because the results were supported by previous studies, they may be transferable to similar settings and teacher demographics and may inform additional research on technology-based professional development. The intent of the study was to explore reasons why teachers implement or do not implement technology into their daily classroom instruction. The study did not intend to offer solutions for overcoming the barriers of technology integration, but to highlight those major barriers and determine the role technology-based professional development has in addressing those barriers.
Protection of Participants’ Rights
Walden University is committed to ensuring that all research participants are treated ethically. Walden requires researchers to complete the National Institutes of Health (NIH) training course Protecting Human Research Participants. This course must be taken before data can be collected to ensure that researchers are fully aware of the manner in which participants must be treated. Proof of completion of the course was submitted with the IRB application and a copy is provided in Appendix G.
All participants were informed of their rights and were asked to carefully read the consent form and ask questions before signing. There were no risks to participants and all activities were a part of their normal teaching duties (i.e. attending professional
development sessions). All information collected was kept confidential to encourage participants to express their opinions comfortably and openly.
Quantitative Results
Based on the results from the Teacher Technology and Learning Survey and the Questionnaire to Measure Perceived Technology Integration Knowledge of Teachers (TPCK), most teachers use technology daily for both teacher use and student learning. Students mainly used technology for researching and reinforcing skills, while teacher’s main uses for technology included administrative-type work and classroom instruction (i.e. SmartBoard use). Availability of technological resources, technology-based support, and teacher self-efficacy were the major factors that determined the frequency of
An invitation to complete the combined surveys was sent out to 42 teachers in which 35 responded (83%). The survey yielded the quantitative data for this case study and was used to address the following research questions:
• What experiences have teachers had with technology integration into daily teaching practices?
• How have teachers’ experiences with technology-based professional development impacted their self-perceived competency level and self- efficacy?
• How do teachers perceive technology-based professional development sessions as a means of helping with the implementation of technology into daily classroom instruction?
• How does the allocation of time, resources and peer collaboration aid in teacher willingness to implement technology into daily classroom teaching and learning?
Demographic information such as grade level, subject area and number of years of professional teaching experience (see Table 1) were collected from the surveys. Respondents represented a wide range of classroom teachers that make up the public charter school system. The sample also included highly qualified, non-certified, and special education teachers.
Table 1
Teacher Demographic Data
Teacher Demographic Data n %
Grade Level taught:
K-5 6 17.14%
6-8 21 60.00%
9-12 8 22.86%
Years of professional teaching experience:
2 or less 5 14.71%
3-7 10 29.41%
8-20 17 50.00%
21+ 2 5.88%
Subject Area(s) Taught:
Art 1 2.86%
Health &/or Physical Education 2 5.71%
History/Social Studies 7 20.00% Language Arts 7 20.00% Mathematics 20 57.14% Reading 7 20.00% Science 10 28.57% Special Education 3 8.57% Other 3 9%
By gathering data from educators representing diverse backgrounds, content knowledge, grades and subjects taught, a more holistic representation of teachers’ experience with technology was analyzed. This data was also used to determine for what purposes technology was being integrated into classrooms.
Technology Integration
Cross referencing data from multiple survey questions revealed potential barriers to technology use in classroom. Barriers were related to the availability of technological resources, intended use and access to support. Figure 1 shows that both students (69%) and teachers (89%) were using technology daily or weekly in most classrooms. All
participants were classroom teachers who have a working Interactive White Board and at least two working computers in their classrooms. Although mandatory duties such as taking attendance daily using an online platform require the use of technology, 11% of teachers (4 out of 35) were still not using technology on a daily or weekly basis and 32% of students were not utilizing available technological resources consistently.
Figure 1 Comparison of Frequency of Student Use and Teacher Use of Technology in the
Classroom
The availability of resources had an impact on how often students and teachers used technology in the classroom. When students had technology readily available (76% or more), resources were being used on a daily or weekly basis (95%). When there was a limited number of students who had technology readily available (0 – 20%), those limited resources were still being used on a daily or weekly basis by students (100%). A
Table 2
Comparison of Availability of Resources to Time Students Technology Use
Percentage of my students Classroom use of technology for students
with daily access to technology
Seldom or never
2 – 4 times
a year Monthly Daily/Weekly
0 – 20% 0% 0% 0% 100%
21 – 40% 0% 0% 33% 67%
41 – 75% 0% 0% 25% 75%
76% or more 0% 0% 5% 95%
Table 3 shows that when technology was easily and/or always available for teacher use, 90% of teachers used technology on a daily/weekly basis.
Table 3
Comparison of Availability of Resources to Time Teachers Use Technology Professional use of technology:
Availability of computers for professional use
Seldom or never 2 – 4 times a year Monthly Daily/Weekly None/not available 0% 0% 0% 0%
Available with effort 0% 0% 0% 10%
Easily available 0% 0% 50% 10%
Always available 0% 0% 50% 80%
Students used technology in the classroom for a variety of reasons. When examining the various ways students use technology in the classroom, results show that technology was mostly used for tasks such as online research, practicing new skills, and as an alternative activity when classwork is completed early. However, less time was spent learning
keyboarding skills, participating in online exchanges, facilitating electronic portfolios and supporting online collaborative projects (see Table 4) and other skills essential to 21st century learning.
Table 4
Student Learning Practices with Technology
Not using technology for this Using technology for this 2 - 4 times a year Using technology for this monthly Using technology for this daily/ weekly n Rating Average Conduct on-line research and/or
investigations 15.15% 24.24% 36.36% 24.24% 33 2.70 Translate data into visual
representations 15.15% 24.24% 30.30% 30.30% 33 2.76 Learn keyboarding skills 70.97% 6.45% 9.68% 12.90% 31 1.65 Learn word processing,
spreadsheets and/or databases skills
54.55% 21.21% 9.09% 15.15% 33 1.85 Learn multimedia presentation
skills 28.13% 25.00% 21.88% 25.00% 32 2.44 Learn Internet skills
18.75% 28.13% 15.63% 37.50% 32 2.72 Use electronic reference tools
40.63% 12.50% 25.00% 21.88% 32 2.28 Use technology to identify
problems and strategize possible solutions
34.38% 21.88% 18.75% 25.00% 32 2.34 Practice skills or concepts not yet
learned 6.25% 6.25% 50.00% 37.50% 32 3.19 Provide alternative activities
when “class work” is finished 21.88% 6.25% 37.50% 34.38% 32 2.84 Support collaborative projects
within the classroom 15.63% 21.88% 43.75% 18.75% 32 2.66 Explore and learn topics of their
own choice 21.88% 28.13% 25.00% 25.00% 32 2.53 Provide resource information not
available at the school site 25.00% 18.75% 34.38% 21.88% 32 2.53 Participate in on-line exchanges
71.88% 12.50% 9.38% 6.25% 32 1.50 Facilitate electronic portfolios
containing actual samples of student work in various media
53.13% 21.88% 12.50% 12.50% 32 1.84 Enable students to demonstrate
their achievement in alternative ways
18.75% 31.25% 31.25% 18.75% 32 2.50 Support on-line collaborative
projects with groups beyond classroom
48.39% 16.13% 22.58% 12.90% 31 2.00 Provide instructional games 9.38% 18.75% 40.63% 31.25% 32 2.94
While students used technology for various purposes as shown in Table 4, the support available when troubleshooting contributed to the frequency of technology use by students in the classroom. Of the teachers who only used technology for students 2 – 4 times a year, all reported that support is likely to be available while teachers who used technology the most reported that support is sometimes available. The more a teacher allows students to use technology in the classroom, the less support there was available from support staff (see Table 5). A separate question in the survey revealed that students were often capable of fixing technological problems on their own. Teachers also turned to peer teachers to assist with technological issues.
Table 5
Comparison of Time Spent Using Technology for Classroom Use and Availability of Support
Classroom Use of Technology for Students
When I have trouble with technology, support staff is: Seldom or never 2 – 4 times a year Monthly Daily/Weekly Likely to be available 0% 100% 50% 33% Sometimes available 0% 0% 38% 63%
Usually not available 0% 0% 13% 4%
The amount of time spent integrating technology into the classroom for teaching and learning purposes varied from teacher to teacher and classroom to classroom. However, a common trend is evident: the more technological resources and support made available to teachers and students, the more it is used. With an onset of technology readily available to teachers and students, an increase in support is needed on a consistent basis.
Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy is how one perceives his or her abilities (Romero & Kyriacou, 2016). Self-efficacy was evaluated using data from the Questionnaire to Measure Perceived Technology Integration Knowledge of Teachers (TPCK), which measured technological, pedagogical and content knowledge. Trends were determined given how one perceives his or her ability to integrate technology, teaching experience and time spent using technology.
Participants classified themselves into one of four categories as a technology user: